We all learnt from movies that you can kill as many people as you want and you are still a good person but once you kill a dog, you become the villianIts not a funny event but its certainly a bizarre event in anti woke world. A republican politician and possible running mate of Trump proudly admitted that she murdered her dog. She also admitted word for word that after having murdered her dog that she felt it a good idea to murder her goat for good measure too. Its literal cartoon villain stuff.
I have no idea what possessed her to admit this. Isn't murdering animals illegal? But more importantly I'm pretty sure that the average voter loves dogs so admitting you get off on murdering dogs seems like a vote loser.
So, as more backstory, this was a juvenile hunting dog that wasn't doing what it was told and messing up hunting. Because it was disobedient, she killed it.Its not a funny event but its certainly a bizarre event in anti woke world. A republican politician and possible running mate of Trump proudly admitted that she murdered her dog. She also admitted word for word that after having murdered her dog that she felt it a good idea to murder her goat for good measure too. Its literal cartoon villain stuff.
She had a farm. I have no idea what the precise laws are in the USA, but very likely because of the nature of running farms with lots of animals, farmers may be able to kill animals where relevant to farm business where the general public would face tighter restrictions. However, there would still be an expectation farmers do it in a manner consistent with animal welfare laws. Shooting them, if done properly, should meet appropriate standards of a quick death with minimal suffering.I have no idea what possessed her to admit this. Isn't murdering animals illegal? But more importantly I'm pretty sure that the average voter loves dogs so admitting you get off on murdering dogs seems like a vote loser.
daily recommended dose of dark CIA lore included.Donate to David's Legal Fund: https://chuffed.org/project/dpk4nvzkr4em
Here's a not-very-comprehensive list of sources used for this video:
The Nature of Honour - David Mcbride
History of the Afghanistan: In the graveyard of empires - Seth G. Jones
The Tragedy of Afghanistan: A First-Hand Account - Raja Anwar
Afghanistan-Washington's Secret War - Philip Bonosky
Descent into Chaos: The US and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia - Ahmed Rashid
Taliban and Bin Laden
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archiv...
https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07...
Ben Roberts Smith Defamation
https://www.theguardian.com/australia...
https://www.theage.com.au/national/be...
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...
Afghani warlords:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/wo...
Australia’s role in Afghanistan
Find Fix Finish: From Tampa to Afghanistan - Ben Mckelvey
Flawed Hero: Truth, lies and war crimes - Chris Masters
https://theforge.defence.gov.au/sites...
ABC
https://law.uq.edu.au/files/60164/afp...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-2...
Just to be clear, McBride was defending soliders who were already charged with war crimes and also pointing out soliders who were not charged with war crimes and, in his opinion, should have beenAussie whistleblower for war crimes going to jail for whistleblowing about war crimes
daily recommended dose of dark CIA lore included.
Yeah I don't think anyone is going to come out of this fiasco even remotely untainted.Just to be clear, McBride was defending soliders who were already charged with war crimes and also pointing out soliders who were not charged with war crimes and, in his opinion, should have been
It's a giant mess and the Australian media has completely shown its ass, as well as our armed forces
You mean a list of games that are to be avoided because a consultancy supposedly put "wokeness" in it? Gee, I wonder why that's bigoted behaviour?
Mental gymnastics? I said I didn't give a fuck. And seeing as the attempt to ban the guy only got him the backing of every rightwing reactionary out there, I give even less of a fuck.
And please don't you start talking to me or anybody else about facts.
DEI itself has bigotry in it, same with twitter comments from people in SBI. You don't care about some company that tried to take probably thousands of dollars from a gamer but you care about said gamer making a list on Steam and basically making Angelfire site? Weird priorities. This is why the left is losing people because you guys just be throwing out people like they are trash for no reason.And now I've changed my stance from 'I don't give a fuck' to 'fuck that guy entirely'.
Sorry, should I have said "end consumers"? And if people are using their involvement as one (likely among several) criteria of what they will buy and it's known that's the case, then the amount of games sold is going to have a impact on their ability to get future work. And let's be real, this is the reason they don't want attention drawn to their portfolio - if it turns out that enough people see their involvement as a bad thing to hurt sales then it will cut them off from at least some future work. And apparently they at least significantly worry that will be the case.Well, their consumers are the studios that hire them, not the people purchasing the games they were hired for. The amount of games sold isn't going to have Sweet Baby Inc. see a profit boost, I'm sure.
I know right? Surely finding a mention buried in the end credits is useful for making a purchasing decision. But that's kind of the point - the end consumer shouldn't know if they were involved and be allowed to consider it when making a purchase, only find out after the fact. Weird that, almost like they don't want end users who haven't purchased a thing they've been involved with to have easy access to that information.Sweet Baby Inc. wasn't hiding, they were in the credits of the games they consulted on.
Wrong direction to look at it, he's talking about games from western devs getting near to carte-blanche regarding sex and sexuality if they're remotely big at all while games localized from East Asia get that stuff tamped down for western releases.Like, I'm 95% sure western devs "get a pass" on full frontal nudity because it's actively illegal in South Korea (pornography in general) and Japan (uncensored genitalia). And our stuff is duly censored when taken over there
Was she just too lazy to take it to a shelter? Like if it won't cooperate with training, I can understand not wanting to keep trying to work with it as a hunting dog after a point (sometimes an animal is just not a good fit for the task at hand) but she could have easily taken it to a shelter.So, as more backstory, this was a juvenile hunting dog that wasn't doing what it was told and messing up hunting. Because it was disobedient, she killed it.
Most games with a Saudi release remove their LGBTQ+ content because they'd rather cut that stuff than not be sold in Saudi Arabia and a couple other countries with similar compunctions. If I remember right one of the Spider-Man games had a mod that removed the LGBTQ+ flags and was thus banned from Nexus, etc where literally all the mod actually did was change a setting in a config file to tell the game it was in a Middle East country but still English language.
I know what he's talking about. I'm calling him stupid and wrong, both in general and in Stellar Blade's case specifically.Wrong direction to look at it, he's talking about games from western devs getting near to carte-blanche regarding sex and sexuality if they're remotely big at all while games localized from East Asia get that stuff tamped down for western releases.
Losing out on work involves more than just less sales. Even with the shitstorm that was stirred up sales would see at best an infinitesimal drop. If we're regarding the people not buying games based on their involvement as the same who claim 'go woke, go broke', then they have very little to worry about in sales lost.Sorry, should I have said "end consumers"? And if people are using their involvement as one (likely among several) criteria of what they will buy and it's known that's the case, then the amount of games sold is going to have a impact on their ability to get future work. And let's be real, this is the reason they don't want attention drawn to their portfolio - if it turns out that enough people see their involvement as a bad thing to hurt sales then it will cut them off from at least some future work. And apparently they at least significantly worry that will be the case.
Considering the bad faith it was done in, no, not weird at all. Nobody cared about Sweet Baby Inc. till right wing reactionaries were put onto their sent. And by now we all know what happens when the reactionary collective senses woke in the water. A lot of disinformation, a lot of conspiracies, a lot of death threats, and a lot of racism and mysogyny. A lot of harassment.I know right? Surely finding a mention buried in the end credits is useful for making a purchasing decision. But that's kind of the point - the end consumer shouldn't know if they were involved and be allowed to consider it when making a purchase, only find out after the fact. Weird that, almost like they don't want end users who haven't purchased a thing they've been involved with to have easy access to that information.
What strange logic. Hey, most staff/dev names are just in the credits, too-- they must be hiding their involvement until after we've bought the product!!Weird that, almost like they don't want end users who haven't purchased a thing they've been involved with to have easy access to that information.